DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists between invention I-III. This is not found persuasive because the differences between the claims require different structures/steps to be met, in turn requiring separate searches for each invention. At least additional classification searching of B64C1/12 and text searching for composite structural skins including titanium ends would be required in the case of invention I, classification searching of B29C66/7428 and text searching for methods of forming a composite structure including bonding titanium with composite skins would be required in the case of invention II, or classification searching of B64F5/40 and text searching for methods of accessing internal volumes of a structure by removing fasteners in a composite panel to remove said panel would be required in the case of invention III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein each composite panel further” appears to grammatically assume multiple composite panels, but only one such composite panel has been introduced (claim 13 however, appears to describe multiple such panels). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “A composite structure comprising: a composite panel fastened to the composite structure at titanium ends” brings into question the scope of the claim because the claim proposes the composite panel being an element of the composite structure. How can this structure be attached to itself? Unlike claim 1, claim 11 does not clearly distinguish/separate a structural support and composite panel forming a skin.
Claims 12-18 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Griess (US 8993084 B2) discloses a composite structure comprising:
a structural support (Griess, figures 22-24, item 118); and
a structural skin (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120) comprising a composite panel comprising a first titanium (Griess. col 5 lines 29-33) end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 24), and a composite skin (Griess, figures 22-24, item 22) joined to and extending from the first titanium end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 26), except:
a second titanium end;
and wherein the composite skin is joined to the second titanium end and extends between the first titanium end and the second titanium end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to mirror the first titanium end joined to the composite skin at the opposite end of the composite skin in order to reduce vibrations of the panel and secure the skin in place, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the structural skin comprises a wing skin of an aircraft (Griess, figures 22-24, items 106 and 108).
Regarding claim 3, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel further comprises a first stepped lap joint (Griess, figures 1-3, item 27; col 6 lines 18-19) between the first titanium end and the composite skin (Griess, figures 1-3, item 25) and a second stepped lap joint between the second titanium end and the composite skin (structure mirrored per obviousness as noted in claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1 further comprising:
fasteners (Griess, figures 1 and 22-24, items 32 and 124, fasteners and slots therefor) extending through the first titanium end and the second titanium end of the composite panel to connect composite panel to the structural support (Griess, figures 22-24, item 124, fasteners and slots extend through metal portion connecting with structure).
Regarding claim 8, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel is an access panel (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120, panel can be used as an access panel) removably connected to provide internal access to the composite structure (Griess, figures 1 and 22-24, items 32 and 124, fasteners and slots therefor; fasteners make this removable).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the composite panel/access panel removable in order allow access the internal structure of wings, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 9, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1, wherein the composite panel comprises more than one titanium structural component forming one of the first titanium end or the second titanium end (Griess, figure 3, item 37).
Regarding claim 11, Griess (US 8993084 B2) discloses a composite structure comprising:
a composite panel fastened to the composite structure at titanium ends (unclear), the composite panel comprising:
a titanium (Griess. col 5 lines 29-33) end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 24); and
a composite skin joined to and extending from the titanium end (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120), except:
a second titanium end;
the composite skin joined to and extending between the two titanium ends.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to mirror the first titanium end joined to the composite skin at the opposite end of the composite skin in order to reduce vibrations of the panel and secure the skin in place, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is one of a plurality of composite panels (Griess, col 9 line 47-col 10 line 9), and wherein the plurality of composite panels comprises a wing skin of an aircraft (Griess, col 10 line 10-35).
Regarding claim 16, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is an access panel removably (Griess, figures 22-24, item 120, panel can be used as an access panel) connected to provide internal access to the composite structure (Griess, panel can provide access to the composite itself or to an attached structure when removed).
Regarding claim 17, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel comprises more than one titanium structural component forming a titanium end (Griess, figure 3, item 37).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Georgeson (US 20150024160 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 1, except:
further comprising:
a titanium splice plates between the structural support and the composite panel.
Georgeson (US 20150024160 A1) a titanium (Georgeson, ¶80) splice plates (Georgeson, figure 12b, items 1216 and 1222) between the structural support (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1264) and the panel (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1212).
Griess and Georgeson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of composite aircraft structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the join between the structural support and composite panel of Griess with the splice plate of Georgeson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reinforce the joint and/or fill space between the structural support and splice plate.
Regarding claim 5, Griess as modified by Georgeson teaches the composite structure of claim 4, wherein the composite panel is removably fastened to a titanium splice plate (Georgeson, figure 12b, item 1230; fasteners; fasteners make this removable).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application make the composite panel removably fastened to the splice plate in order to access the internal structure of wings or replace/repair the composite panel, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beumler (US 12497152 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 8, except:
wherein a dividing set of composite plies extends between the more than one titanium structural component to provide an escape path for volatiles.
Beumler (US 12497152 B2) teaches a dividing set of composite plies (Beumler, figure 2, items 102 and 104; col 5 lines 23-46) extends between the more than one metal structural component (Beumler, figure 2, items 101, 105, and 106a-b; col 5 lines 18-22) to provide an escape path for volatiles (Beumler, piles between layers function to provide an escape path for volatiles).
Griess and Beumler are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of composite aircraft structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the join between the structural support and more than one structural components forming ends of Griess with the dividing set of composite piles of Beumler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent/reduce crack propagation and delamination between layers of titanium components.
Regarding claim 12, Griess as modified by Beumler teaches the composite structure of claim 10, wherein each composite panel further comprises a first stepped lap joint between a first titanium end and the composite skin (Griess, figures 1-3, item 27; col 6 lines 18-19) and a second stepped lap joint between a second titanium end and the composite skin (Griess, mirrored).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (CA 2829899 C).
Regarding claim 14, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 11, wherein the composite panel is one of a plurality of composite panels (Griess, figure 22, item 120, composite panels on opposite sides of the structure; mirrored on other side of aircraft per claim 11) except: further comprising:
titanium splice plates joining the plurality of composite panels.
Lin (CA 2829899 C) teaches titanium (Lin, page 4, lines 14-15) splice plates (Lin, figure 1, item 15) joining the plurality of composite panels (Lin, figure 1, items 40 and 50).
Griess and Lin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft metal-composite joints. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the joins between metal ends and overall aircraft structural attachments of Griess with the titanium splice plate between composite panels of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reinforce the joint.
Regarding claim 15, Griess as modified by Lin teaches the composite structure of claim 14, wherein each composite panel of the plurality of composite panels (Lin, figure 1, items 40 and 50) is removably fastened (Lin, figure 1, item 80) to a titanium splice plate of the titanium splice plates (Lin, figure 1, item 15).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the composite panel removably fastened to the titanium splice plate in order allow access the internal structure of wings and replace the splice plates or composite panels, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griess (US 8993084 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beumler (US 12497152 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Griess teaches the composite structure of claim 17, except:
wherein a dividing set of composite plies extends between the more than one titanium structural component to provide an escape path for volatiles.
Beumler (US 12497152 B2) teaches a dividing set of composite plies (Beumler, figure 2, items 102 and 104; col 5 lines 23-46) extends between the more than one metal structural component (Beumler, figure 2, items 101, 105, and 106a-b; col 5 lines 18-22) to provide an escape path for volatiles (Beumler, piles between layers function to provide an escape path for volatiles).
Griess and Beumler are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of composite aircraft structures. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the join between the structural support and more than one structural components forming ends of Griess with the dividing set of composite piles of Beumler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent/reduce crack propagation and delamination between layers of titanium components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roebroeks (CN 101500797 A) teaches a composite panel comprising more than one metal structural component (figures 1-2, items 2, 3, and 12) and wherein a dividing set of composite plies (figures 1-2, items 4, 5, and 11) extends between the more than one metal structural component to provide an escape path for volatiles
Lambing (US 5160771 A) teaches a joint between two laminate sheets; the sheets have metal layers joined with a polymer layer
Porte (US 6479124 B1) teaches a composite panel with a metallic cloth
Westre (US 7115323 B2) teaches a laminate structure with titanium foil layers and polymer layers
Stephan (US 7875333 B2) teaches a stepped joint attaching aluminum sheets to a composite sheet structure
Griess (US 8652606 B2) teaches a joint (fig 28 item 26) between metal sheets (fig 28 item 24) and composite sheets (fig 28 item 35); metal can be titanium; joints are ‘multi step lap joints” ¶18
Hamada (US 8795804 B2) teaches a stepped lap joint between a metal and fiber reinforced resin; mentions TI alloy (¶30); multiple layers of the joint are shown, and the metal parts are welded together
Diep (US 8960606 B2) teaches a titanium splice plate
Nonaka (US 10094405 B2) teaches a composite with upper and lower plates attached (may be metal plates)
Larsson (WO 2014116151 A1) teaches a laminate joint between a composite sheet section and a metal sheet section; where the metal sheet section includes a fastener (fig 3c)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights